,9 
/ 1 



DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT VON ST. LOUIS 



Neutrality 

AND 

Public Opinion 



BY 



HON. CHARLES NAGEL 



An Address Delivered under the Auspices 
of the Society, at Sheldon Memorial Hall 
on the Twenty-third of January, 1915 



ADDRESS BY 



CHARLES NAGEL 



DELIVERED UNDER THE AUSPICES 

OF THE 

DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT 
OF ST. LOUIS 



SATURDAY, JANUARY 23rd, 1915 

SHELDON MEMORIAL HALL 

ST. LOUIS 



"3 



^^' 



By transfer 
The White House 



Peterson Linotyping Company, Chicago 



Mr, Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

First, I want to express my appreciation for this invitation 
from the Deutsche Gesellschaft. It means a great deal more 
to me, perhaps, than you suspect, because, for the best part of 
my life, I have lived under something of a suspicion that my 
allegiance to our institutions of English origin might tempt me 
to forget my ancestry. I have never felt the justice of that 
charge, because I have believed that traditions bred in the bone 
are perfectly safe in the citizenship of the United States. As I 
read it, every nation whose representatives come to these shores 
makes its contributions, and all must be amalgamated in the 
one citizenship of this country. 

Feeling as I do, I am not unaware of the delicacy of the 
subject that I am to discuss, because I know that there is danger 
of partisanship, of which we have had many demonstrations; 
and because I believe it to be of the utmost importance that the 
whole case be impartially and fairly stated. We must remem- 
ber that we are a composite people. Our problem is to unite 
the representatives of the many races in obedience to our com- 
mon institutions. I think it can be said that the citizen of 
German blood has done this. True, our institutions are of 
English origin in the political sense; but in the social and 
industrial sense tremendous influences have been brought to 
bear from other countries, and, in that respect, the German 
may claim to have done his share. In the political field his 
prominence has not been particularly distinguished. It is true 
at least to say that prominent positions have not been repre- 
sented by him with any degree of frequency. But that is natural 
and normal. It was wise to have institutions of English origin 
kept within the charge of the representatives of those people 
who might be expected to have the better understanding of these 
institutions. But when we consider our country apart from 
the strictly political phase, and include the industrial and 

3 



social, it must be said that the German branch of our citizenship 
has done its share. I know it is customary to point to the 
contributions of German science and art and music and learning. 
But let us look for once in another direction. 

When, for illustration, we ask who does the farming, it will 
not be denied that foremost among the real tillers of the soil are 
the German, the Bohemian, the Swede, the Norwegian, the Pole 
and the Italian. If we ask about the composition of our people, 
we will find that the English, the Scotch and the Irish stock do not 
represent substantially more than fifty per cent of the population 
of this country. 

These are facts, and we ought to congratulate ourselves 
that they have not been made more prominent in the consid- 
eration of our questions than has been the case. Every contri- 
bution has been made to the common amalgamation, which, in 
my judgment, is so complete that there should be no room for 
the terms that we hear bandied about, which are perhaps not 
intended to mean as much as they seem, but which, in my 
opinion, are to be avoided. 

Our sympathy we cannot deny. For many it must be diffi- 
cult to restrain it within the confines of patriotism. But we 
who glory in an independent citizenship must be careful that 
no word and no conduct may tend to commit our country to a 
false position. We must keep in mind a distinction between 
sympathy for a particular belligerent, or even an opinion about 
the right and wrong of the war, and the position which we ask 
our Government to take as a neutral countrj^ In my opinion 
there should be in our citizenship no German- Americans, no 
Irish-Americans, no Italian-Americans, and no English-Ameri- 
cans. The use of the hyphen as I see it really defeats the very 
idea for which w^e stand. And I say this fully appreciating 
that there are English sympathizers who might well employ 
the hyphen to identify themselves as Americans. There is just 
one i^latform upon which all the ]:)rinciples and traditions of 
all the races here represented must be assembled, and from 
which must be announced every rule for our guidance. That 
is the platform of the United States. But, standing upon it, 
every citizen has the right to ask questions of himself and of 
others ; and he may even be under the obligation to express his 

4 



convictions as they come to him, upon every problem of moment 
to this nation. 

I know it has been said that the foreign war does not 
concern us. Eminent authority in our nation has made that 
statement. How monstrous a proposition! The foreign war 
concerns us, not only now in the most material sense ; but the 
consequences of that war, no matter what the result may be, 
will be of vast significance to this nation for years to come. 
The mere cutting of communication between Germany and 
Austria and this country has brought anguish and sorrow to 
homes here and there, has deprived people here of the privilege 
of communication, and of the right to give support ofttimes to 
those dearest and nearest to them. So profoundly are we 
interested in tliis means of communication, that its destruction 
may well present the question of our right to protest, and how 
the situation is to be remedied. Civilized peoples are so closely 
related today that the consequences of such a war cannot be 
escaped by us, privately or officially. 

Some of the questions forced upon us are of public moment, 
and concern the Government. As to them we have a right 
to ask how they are dealt with, and how they are answered; 
and whether they are considered with that degree of impar- 
tiality, judgment and firmness, which the united citizenship of 
this country has the right to expect. 

For illustration : It is urged that the United States should 
not permit the sale of arms and ammunition to belligerents, and 
that contention has been presented from several ])oints of view. 
It has been said that we are not neutral if we sell arms under 
the existing conditions, because one belligerent is in a position 
to prevent similar delivery of arms to other belligerents, and, 
therefore, enjoys an advantage. As one citizen, I am bound tu 
say that I cannot follow that argument. I cannot believe that 
there is anything in treaties or in international law which 
prevents citizens of the United States from selling ammunition 
to any nation that is in a position to obtain and to pay for them. 
In other words, the choice is not ours. We appear to be willing 
to sell to any nation ; and the circumstances that one can prevent 
us from selling to another, does not present a question of inter- 
national law or justice. In my judgment, a mistake is made 

5 



when the argument is put upon that ground. As a matter of 
right, our manufacturers may sell to whom they please. The 
fact that they cannot deliver may be their misfortune; and it 
may be the misfortune of a belligerent people; but it does not 
present a question under international law. In other words, 
the question is not one of justice to Germany and Austria, but 
it is one of self-respect for the United States. The real question 
is, are we willing to have our manufacturers sell arms and 
ammunition to any one? In view of all our recommendations 
for peace treaties, are we prepared to have that traffic continue f 

With respect to this Continent, and more especially with 
respect to Mexico, Congress a few years ago adopted a reso- 
lution which authorized the President of the United States to 
prevent the exportation of arms to nations on this Continent. 
That authority was used, and arms were not imported for a 
time. If we are really as solicitous about peace on the other 
side of the ocean as we appear to be, what is there to prevent 
us from extending that resolution? That, in my opinion, is the 
weight of the argument against the sale of arms. It is true 
that the use of the President's authority in pursuance of that 
resolution has somewhat obscured our position. We did after- 
wards allow the export of arms and ammunition to help a 
particular side in the Mexican controversy; and we did hinder 
a German ship from delivering arms and ammunition at a 
particular point to the other side. But that circumstance might 
be used to show the danger of playing favorites, and to accen- 
tuate the necessity for extreme circumspection in our attitude 
now. In any event this much is true: Our position as a pro- 
moter of peace will not be judged by high-sounding treaties, 
platforms and political speeches, but by the promptness with 
which we cast our moral declarations into legislative form. 

Again, we have a shipping bill, which presents the question 
whether we have the right to buy merchantmen that are interned 
in our harbors. Personally, I am opposed to this bill ; because 
I should regret to have a seeming emergency used as the induce- 
ment for the adoption of a political policy which, to my mind, 
constitutes a radical departure from accepted principle, and 
which invites the first step towards government ownership of 
large enterprises. But the further doubt has been suggested, 

6 



and is now urged, that we might give offense to one of the 
belligerents if we bought such ships. I cannot follow that 
argument. If we have a right to sell ammunition to England, 
we must have a right to buy ships from Germany. I am told, 
and read in the press, that it has been officially said that no 
objection is made to the purchase by us of German ships, 
provided those ships are used in South American commerce. 
That argument I cannot follow. We either have a right to 
buy those ships, or we have not ; and it must not be left to any 
foreign country to say how we shall employ those ships, or 
where we shall carry our commerce. 

The uncertainty of the objection to such a purchase is well 
illustrated by the varying grounds that have been assigned. 
Originally it was said that Great Britain might take exception 
to the fact that a purchase of German ships by us would result 
in a material monetary support to her enemy. Now we are told 
that these interned ships might be converted into armed men- 
of-war. Probably these objections are readily disposed of. In 
the first instance, the validity of a purchase for cash from 
Germany must depend entirely upon the character of the subject 
purchased. So far as the ships — the subject of the purchase — 
are concerned, they are not armed at the present time, but are 
merchantmen pure and simple ; and, further, they are merchant- 
men upon whom we have, in the absence of a merchant marine 
of our own, depended in a very large measure as our carriers, 
in the pursuit of our legitimate business with foreign countries. 

The only argument, therefore, which, in my opinion, is 
deserving of serious attention, is the one that these ships in 
their present position are subject to capture by the allies ; and 
of this question the utmost that can be said is that it is unde- 
termined. Accepting it as such, it is for us to decide whether 
it is our purpose to permit every doubtful question in whose 
answer we are interested, to be settled for us by another power, 
in accordance with the dictates of her immediate necessities. Or 
whether we will for ourselves enquire into the rule of reason 
of the particular case, and, having reached our own conclusion, 
will stand for our decision. What is the reason of the case? 
To repeat, these merchantmen constitute in large part our 
reliance for carrving our trade between friendly ports. They 

7 



are not now prepared for war. They are in no sense to be 
likened to men-of-war built in neutral ports, and there trans- 
ferred to a belligerent to be employed upon the high seas. The 
change of ownership in our case would involve nothing more 
than the employment of these ships in the same business in 
which they were heretofore engaged under the flag of a neutral 
between neutral ports. 

That this is the reason of the case was virtually confirmed 
in the London declaration of 1909. That declaration was signed 
by the delegate of Great Britain; and the only circumstance 
that now prevents us from insisting upon that declaration is 
that it has not been ratified by her. 

In view of this situation, I submit that there is no more 
room for discussion about the correctness of the principle. The 
only point that can be made is that some countries have not 
formally acceded to the principle, although they have morally 
ratified it. That being so, it appears to me that we are unques- 
tionably in a iDosition to say that we propose to have some 
hand in the formulating of correct international principles — 
not after the time of their employment has passed — but while 
they can be invoked by us, and that we should stand upon a 
decision so reached. 

The next question is as to cargoes that may be carried from 
our country to neutral ports — and here we are confronted by 
an extended list announced by Great Britain, which is not based 
upon and is not enforced in obedience to accepted practice under 
international law, but which has now been so extended and so 
enforced, upon the avowed ground that the necessities of the 
case compel Great Britain to resort to such measures. You 
have heard it said during this war that necessity does not afford 
a good excuse ; and, for my part, I fail to see why the argument 
should be good one way and not the other. We may in this 
case want to consult our own interest, as others have done; 
and, in my judgment, we have a right to insist upon a list of 
free goods substantially as it stood before the war was declared. 
"While I am not a believer in our ability to permanently build 
up our trade upon the misfortunes of other countries, we have 
a right to take advantage of the legitimate conditions that have 
arisen; and we must at least have the privilege to sell to any 

8 



nation with whom we are not at war any goods that were not 
commonly recognized as contraband by international rule. 
Belligerents may be permitted to modify International Law in 
so far as these modifications affect only the immediate con- 
testants. It is quite another thing to have either belligerent by 
declaration or conduct deprive a neutral of established rights. 

More than that. Great Britain has extended the right of 
blockade. She secures the effect of an actual blockade of Ger- 
man ports, by withdrawing her fleet to the North Sea, perhaps 
even to the western coast of England, and by taking neutral 
ships into her ports upon mere suspicion, without any such 
well-defined grounds as have heretofore been recognized. Her 
trials in her Prize Courts, and her ultimate purchase of cargoes, 
afford no relief, because her course necessarily results in the 
discouragement and destruction of our commerce. 

These are questions that present themselves to us as citi- 
zens; and we watch the answers that are made because we are 
interested in the development of international law and rules 
as they are now being formulated. We have an illustration: 
There is a ship which has been purchased by a citizen of the 
United States, and our Government has decided that his pur- 
chase is proper and regular. That ship has a cargo confessedly 
not within any interpretation of the contraband list. In other 
words, by every rule of international law, and by the decision 
which our Government has deliberately made, as I understand 
it, this ship has a right to carry that cargo to a neutral port. 
We are told that this ship will be seized because the sale is 
questioned. What are we going to do about it? Two extreme 
measures are possible. Perhaps a man-of-war might go with 
that ship, with tlie announcement that whoever seized one would 
have to sink the other. Or we might wait to have something 
turn up, and content ourselves with insuring the cargo for the 
time being. One course is as sure to invite trouble as the other. 

In my judgment there is a middle course. There might be 
a Secretary of State who would declare in unequivocal language 
that we had determined that this ship has a right to go, and 
that she will go. In such an event we would not need a man- 
of-war, because the rights to the cargo are conceded, and the 
question of the ship's bona fide sale has been decided by us. 

9 



We are not interested in disputed questions to be brought into 
moot courts. The delay of diplomatic correspondence is well 
calculated to serve the same purpose as seizing the ship itself. 
Protracted discussions mean no foreign commerce for us during 
this war. If we yield, the result would be a solemn declaration 
of the right of our manufacturers to sell ammunition to the 
allies, and acquiesce in the refusal to have us deliver cotton 
to Germany and Austria for fear that we might give offense to 
their enemies. In the last analysis we might be asked to admit 
that it is equally unneutral to refuse to sell ammunition to 
Great Britain, and to offer to sell cotton to Germany and 
Austria. 

In any event, is it neutral for us, without protest or enquiry, 
to receive and to accept Great Britain's note in which she 
announces that she may not continue the observance of the 
rule with respect to free cargoes, because her enemies are guilty 
of barbarous conduct in making war? Are we prepared to 
institute comparisons in the methods of warfare, and to accept 
this charge as against one belligerent, and upon that to sur- 
render our rights with respect to the other? 

Another international question is presented; that is, with 
respect to the right of belligerents on neutral ships. It may be 
said that we are not substantially concerned, because we have 
no ships to speak of to be challenged. But we are profoundly 
interested in the situation, because it presents a grave principle 
of international law for the adoption of which we paid a heavy 
price at the time. 

During the War of Independence, Great Britain captured 
Laurens on board a neutral Dutch ship, and held him as a pris- 
oner in the Tower until the end of the war. In 1861 we took 
two Confederate emissaries off the English neutral ship Trent, 
and we were driven to the verge of war with England by doing^ 
precisely what England had done to us. Only by the presence 
of mind of Senator Sumner — by his taking the responsibility on 
the floor of the Senate — ^was our country saved from the gravest 
consequences. Our submission established a rule, in spite of 
which citizens of belligerent countries have now been taken off 
Italian ships and Dutch ships. If it be contended that our right 
to protest depends upon present injury suffered by us, then it 

10 



looks very much as though the law may be changed from time 
to time, so long as there is no neutral country strong enough 
to assert its rights. Again, I submit that there has been much 
said of late about strong countries protecting weaker ones. 

It is for us to remember Abraham Lincoln and Secretary 
Seward, and their experience in 1861. We have a right to ask 
whether these rules of conduct upon the sea may be changed 
from day to day to suit the convenience and the purpose of one 
absolute power. 

Monopoly is a dangerous thing. It may be beneficent, but 
it may also be abused. I hear that one of our distinguished 
citizens has said that the development of our commerce to South 
America would be very much furthered by the triumph of the 
British fleet upon the seas. I trust that the growth of our 
commerce may never be entrusted to the sufferance of any 
foreign power. Unless there be a world peace, I hope that we 
may stand for our rights and our obligations in our own name, 
not beholden to any nation. If there be need for a fleet, let it 
be a fleet with the stars and stripes at the mast. So long as 
there is monopoly of sea power, there is temptation to substitute 
men-of-war for merchantmen; there is danger of abuse and 
friction ; and so long as there is friction there is danger of war ; 
and that we should be prepared to meet. 

I refer to these questions because they are real, and because, 
as citizens, we are entitled to our opinions. It may be said 
that this last question to which I have just referred is affected 
by the declaration of London of 1909, in which the broad term 
is employed that all citizens embodied in the army of a bellig- 
erent country may be taken off a neutral ship. The language 
is not that men, subject to call or service, may be taken, but 
that men embodied in tlie army, may. It is to be remembered 
that the declaration of London has not been ratified by Great 
Britain, and has therefore not been accepted as binding by her; 
but even so, the declaration has received interpretation in two 
cases arising between Italy and Turkey. In one case Italy did 
take Turkey's soldiers and officers off an English ship without 
protest. In the other case Italy took passengers on the ground 
that they were enlisted men from a French ship. The last con- 
troversy was submitted to The Hague tribunal, and it was de- 
ll 



cided that Italy was right because some of the passengers 
taken were really enlisted men. In other words, the decision 
rested upon the presence of passengers who were enlisted men. 
But apart from that, it must be remembered that many citizens 
of Germany and Austria taken off neutral ships were not only 
not embodied in either army, but were not even subject to call 
or service, because they were far beyond the years when army 
service could be contemplated. 

I submit that there has been no modification of interna- 
tional law in this respect ; and if there is a principle at stake to 
which we, as one of the nations, have contributed at our cost, 
then that principle should not be changed without protest from 
us. If we act otherwise, the law will, in every instance, be 
made without us while we are waiting. We will be told that 
thes^ questions should be submitted to tribunals for definite 
settlement. Ordinarily, I favor that course; but not when the 
delay is had under circumstances that must work obvious and 
irreparable injury to us. Submission and awards of that kind 
are consolations for the weak. Present insistence upon right 
and justice in reason is a part of the strong. It should be 
remembered that international law is now in the making, and 
that not unlike all other law, it is the growth of conduct. If we 
stand helplessly by, the leveling process will be downward. 

There are other questions, in my judgment, more difficult 
still and perhaps more far-reaching in their consequences, with 
reference to which there is great danger, that we may take par- 
tisan views and be guilty of hasty expression. For my part, I 
say again that I should regard it as a calamity if the difficulties 
and controversies on the other side should find reflection, by 
friction, on this side. But the way to avoid it, is to speak 
promxjtly, deliberately and fearlessly. 

True, our institutions are of English origin. It is not 
stretching a point to say tliat in the last analysis tliey are of 
German origin. It should be remembered that the English are 
not an unmixed stock, that the great mass of her people is 
Saxon, and that it was essentially this branch that constituted 
the early .settlers upon our shores, and gave direction to our 
institutions. AVe are not so far apart, between the United 
States, and England and. Germany and Austria. Even other 

12 



countries might easily be included, but the pressure is upon 
this particular point now. 

When England had her war with the Boers, I expressed 
the opinion that the Boers could never win, because the English 
language would defeat them. They would not be understood 
in time to make a successful war. Even in great wars public 
opinion is a powerful factor. 

Today the English language is still the most powerful 
monopoly in the civilized world. A beneficent monopoly, no 
doubt; but in case of emergency, capable of great abuse. That 
monopoly has existed for a long period. It has been used to 
frame and to make opinion in England and in other countries; 
and the difficulty at this time is to correct impressions that have 
been created in the past, and that have been most carefully 
encouraged in the present. 

This has been demonstrated particularly in the beginning 
of this foreign war, when our country was flooded with one- 
sided, with colored and with false reports. In my judgment, 
the cutting of the German cable was the greatest political 
blunder of the war, not for temporary purposes, but in its ulti- 
mate consequences. It is true that in the beginning, public 
opinion was successfully prejudiced, because all the information 
came from one side. But the American people are fair-minded ; 
they want the truth. They will be impatient if it is denied, and 
today we see that the demand is growing. In every newspaper 
we read, and in every conversation we hear, the effect of this 
new demand. Just as international law is made in the act, so 
history will be recorded as the facts are now written down. 
It is our part to help write them down correctly. We should 
remember that to this day the story of the Hessians is the chief 
reproach against the German element of this country ; forgetting 
all the time that it was Great Britain who bought these wretched, 
helpless men; forgetting that the purchase was made against 
the energetic protest of Frederick the Great; and forgetting 
that Germany has always been a friendly power. 

Let us return to some of these early reports about the war, 
and see how they read in the light of facts that have been 
brought to us since. Take the case of Austria and Servia. 
One impression created was that Austria-Hungary had made 

13 



an unreasonable demand upon Servia. Her Crown Prince had 
been assassinated. She had made exhaustive inquiry, and pre- 
sented evidence to show that among some twenty-five persons 
implicated, there were a number in high official position, by 
whom the crime had been instigated and encouraged. It was 
claimed in the early reports that Austria-Hungary, in asking 
to participate in the hearing which Servia was willing to afford, 
had gone so far as to deny the integrity and independence of 
Servia herself ; and that interpretation has found support here. 
What is the fact! Austria did not demand to sit in judgment 
upon the wrong-doers ; she did ask that a representative of hers 
participate in the investigation — not in the judgment. Her 
request in that respect was assigned as the cause of the war, 
and upon that narrow margin has it been attempted to fix the 
responsibility of this war by a great many among us. 

Let us see how it compares with other instances. It was 
claimed by Austria that such a demand as she made was not 
unusual in similar international controversies. But we need 
not go back far. Only the other day the newspapers stated that 
Italy's demand upon Turkey had been met by an agreement to 
return an English Consul, and to name a commission to make 
enquiry into the guilt of the participants; and that thereupon 
Italy, accepting these terms, had at once landed her own Consul, 
with instructions to participate in the investigation, and to see 
to it that that enquiry was brought to a prompt conclusion. 
The cases are precisely similar, with this exception, that 
Austria asked for the right to participate, and Italy took it. 
And yet there has not been an adverse comment upon the 
conduct of Italy, in public or in private, that has come to my 
attention. 

But let us come nearer home. We have had controversies 
now and then. We went down to the Gulf of Mexico and made 
an attack upon a Mexican city. We killed a number of people, 
and lost some of our men. Wliat was our grievance! Because 
somebody whom we would not recognize would not speak to us. 
That was the substance of it. We never declared war, but we 
made war. Are we in a position to pass upon the formalities 
of intercourse between nations? I speak of it because if we as 
a people propose to condemn the abuses of war, we should re- 

14 



fleet upon what we ourselves have done through our Govern- 
ment. 

What did we do about Spain? One morning the country 
was aroused by the information that the Maine had been blown 
up. When did we ask for or make an investigation. Some years 
after the war. We came to the conclusion that some Spanish 
ofl&cer, without any reason to believe that the Spanish Govern- 
ment knew of it, must have been instrumental in the blowing 
up of the Maine, And President McKinley himself could not 
stop the popular demand for war upon Spain. We made that 
war. We took territory in consequence, and we investigated 
afterwards. 

By way of comparison, we should remember that Austria- 
Hungary, in making her demands, even to the last offered to 
guarantee to Servia, and to the great powers, that the integrity 
of the Government and territory of Servia should in all respects 
be maintained. 

Furthermore, as late as 1909 the great powers had solemnly 
demanded of Servia that her conduct towards Austria must 
be mended ; that she had given constant occasion for unrest, and 
that the patience of Austria had been tried to the extreme. Is it 
to be wondered at that in view of the past experience and the 
immediate tragedy, and the unsatisfactory response from Ser- 
via, Austria found it impossible to further control popular 
impatience, and felt compelled to resort to aggressive measures'? 
And if she did, are we in a position to pass judgment on her 
conduct? 

In this connection, is there not reason to believe that 
Russia exercised practical control over Servia throughout ; that 
some of her people were, as Austria charged, instrumental in 
furthering the friction on the border line ? Is it not of peculiar 
interest now to recall that Grey said throughout the efforts to 
preserve peace that he was not interested in the Austria-Servia 
controversy; but if Russia entered, he would become interested? 
And is there no reason now, in the enquiry which has been made 
in the English Labor Organ of late, why it was that Grey, 
apparently solicitous for peace, exerted his influence at every 
point except the one where it might have been effective, namely, 
with Russia? 

15 



Take the case of Belgium. I know that there is strong 
feeling upon that subject. But let us get the true situation, 
and at least make up our minds upon all the facts that we can 
get; or if we feel that we have not been supplied with every- 
thing, let us wait for the rest before we pass final judgment. 
It is true, as Germany said, she had no right to go through 
Belgium. As I recall it, she did not say it was a breach of 
neutrality, but that it was against international law. She also 
said that she was driven by necessity, and, finally, that she 
had every reason to believe that France would go through Bel- 
gium if she did not; and that therefore she could not take the 
risk of an attack under such disadvantageous conditions. I 
know there have been a number of explanations made, and many 
of them do not meet with our sympathy. I know that Belgian, 
French, English and German authorities have said that in case 
of necessity every country at war has a right to cross neutral 
territory; and it has even been claimed that a Belgian authority 
has declared that this is especially true when the neutral power 
is not strong enough to protect itself. We need not approve 
of this doctrine; but reflection will tell us that necessity is a 
powerful factor, which has by no means been invoked by only 
one side in this war, and which has strong support in private 
and in public emergency. 

Again, it has been said that Belgium had a treaty with 
Germany. Upon technical grounds that is to be doubted. 
Strictly speaking, the German Empire probably never had a 
treaty with Belgium. For this view Professor Burgess is 
authority. A similar view was expressed by Gladstone in 1870, 
and, I think, is shared by Grey at the present time. But that 
argument is hardly persuasive for the American mind. If, 
however, Germany was right in saying that Belgium was not 
really neutral ; if she had serious reason to believe that Belgium 
was not neutral, then, in my judgment, she could not hesitate to 
act; because her own salvation depended upon her decision and 
conduct. And in this connection it should not be forgotten that 
Germany promised protection to Belgium's integrity and reim- 
bursement for all damage that might be done by the crossing 
of her troops, which was refused, and that even after the first 
conflicts Germany again renewed the tender and it was again 

16 



refused. In the light of Germany's conduct with respect to 
Luxemburg, where she also crossed without strict right, but 
where her offer was accepted, Germany is at least entitled to 
have it said that an adjustment of the injury done has been 
reached, and that the larger part of the sum awarded has even 
now been paid. 

But more has come to the surface now, although little 
enough publicity has been given to it. We are still told about 
the poor inhabitants of Belgium, and God knows every human 
being sees that picture. But sometimes there seems to be a 
disposition to dwell upon our sympathies for the people, in order 
that the later disclosures about Belgium's official conduct may 
be covered over. There is no question now that Belgium and 
Great Britain had had communications. Not a treaty, but an 
understanding, to the eifect that Great Britain would land 
troops in Belgium for her protection. Such understandings are 
more dangerous than treaties, because they are even more 
secret. Originally that understanding appears to have been 
based upon the supposition that Germany might encroach upon 
Belgium ; but in the last interview reduced to wanting, the repre- 
sentative of Great Britain makes it perfectly plain that his 
country intended to land troops without request on the part of 
Belgium, and would do it when England thought that such a 
course was necessary. When the Belgian representative insisted 
that English troops could be landed only upon Belgium's request, 
the answer was that Belgium was not strong enough to defend 
herself, and that Great Britain herself would decide when such 
landing should be made. 

The documents are no longer denied, although for a long 
period of time after their discovery silence was observed with 
respect to them. The explanation has been offered that the 
entire communications were based upon the idea that Germany 
might become guilty of a breach of neutrality with respect to 
Belgium. But no explanation has been given, or, indeed, upon 
the face of the record can be given, for England's declaration 
that she herself would determine, without consultation of Bel- 
gium, when it would be necessary to land her troops upon the 
shores of Belgium. 

Again, it is important to remember that an ex- Ambassador 

17 



of Belgium, when these communications between Great Britain 
and his country were brought to his attention, in an extended 
communication which is also on hand, made the declaration that 
the understanding between the two countries had effected the 
surrender of Belgium's neutrality. 

Does it not stand to reason that Germany had grounds for 
suspicion, and are we to assume that she was entirely ignorant 
of these occurrences? Of course, no one here can prove it, but 
I assume German papers are as reliable as English papers, and 
they do say that Germany had remonstrated with Belgium for 
having so many French officers in her forts ; and when France 
^nsw^ered that there was no French artillery in Belgium at the 
beginning of the war, Germany's response was that she captured 
such artillery at Liege. 

These are circumstances to be considered, and if the case 
is as it now appears, Germany was undoubtedly right in her 
suspicion and in her decision. In any event, there is a great 
deal in what Trevelyan said at the time of his resignation from 
the British Cabinet at the beginning of the war : ' ' I disapprove 
as much as any one the breach of Belgium's neutrality by Ger- 
many, but I insist that if France had been guilty of this wrong, 
we would have protested in some fashion without committing 
our country to war." 

Above all, what becomes of the English claim that Great 
Britain was induced to join this war because of the injustice 
that Germany had done to Belgium, when Grey, on the third of 
August, in his speech to Parliament, said that on the day before, 
namely, on the second of August, and before Germany had 
touched Belgium, he had promised France that if France 
and Germany became engaged in war, the English fleet would 
protect the north coast of France Avith British ships. Was 
that neutrality? There is no claim that this promise was 
not made before Germany was guilty of any conduct with respect 
to Belgium. 

In the same speech Grey admits that as early as 1906 
the officers of the English and the officers of the French 
army had been communicating for the purpose of preparing 
themselves against a common enemy. Even now in an English 
magazine we may read praise of Churchill for having had the 

18 



foresight to have the English fleet reviewed as early as July 
(while the German Kaiser was sailing in his yacht in the North 
Sea) , in order that the fleet might be ready for prompt action 
when the war commenced. And that statement finds support in 
the correspondence to the New York Nation. No wonder Tre- 
velyan said when he resigned that they had been assured that 
England was free to act, but that they found now that she had 
been committed all the time. 

Are not these circumstances to be weighed in determining 
the question of guilt or innocence of this world war! 

It is not for me to say that this or that is true ; but I do 
say that it is stated in responsible journals. Inasmuch as we 
are judging men and nations by books and articles, it is fair to 
present this side. It is also fair to add that the attache of Bel- 
gium in St. Petersburg officially reported in so many words, that 
it was obvious that the Kaiser had done everything within his 
power to prevent the war, and that there was little question that 
the war party in Russia could not be kept in control after the 
confidence had gained ground in St. Petersburg that Great 
Britain would stand behind Russia in any event. 

These, too, are only circumstances, but why should they 
not be weighed? 

To my mind there is strong proof that the Belgian govern- 
ment was responsible, and that the Belgian people are innocent. 
All the sj^mpathy that goes out to them they deserve. No one 
on this side can do too much; but, let me ask, why not other 
peoples? Do you suppose that the Cossacks inflicted no suffer- 
ing upon women and children in East Prussia! Or do we fail 
to think about their suffering because the English language 
fails to record it? Why not the Poles; are they guilty? They 
do not belong to any country. And does any one need to be told 
about their sufferings, vvith two armies marching across their 
country as often as three times— and does any one raise a 
voice or a hand for them? If we arc to weep, why not shed our 
tears impartially? 

Why not remember Finland? A civilized country with her 
own religion and her own literature, deprived of her constitu- 
tional independence by the stroke of the Czar's pen, and now 
further subjected to wrong and deprivation? Why not sympa- 

19 



tliize with that jieople! If you doubt the gravity of their case, 
read the volume by Fisher, who is an Englishman. 

There are other minor matters that receive their coloring 
from the reports that come to us by way of England. I repeat, 
it is a mistake to cut oil communication with Germany and 
Austria-Hungary, because had we felt from the beginning that 
we heard both sides impatience would never have entered our 
judgment, and it would be unnecessary for us to present the 
other side in such meetings as this, upon the ground that only 
one side had been fairly heard. 

We read about the mines in the North Sea, and they are 
invariably called "German mines." Has anybody ever identi- 
fied one? I read in a German paper the other day that the 
Dutch Government picked up one hundred mines, and that it 
was semi-officially announced that eighty of them were English 
and twenty French. I do not know whether this is true or 
not, and neither do you, but it should enter into the discus- 
sion, and should at least raise our doubts before we accept so 
plain a charge. Especially is this true when the statement is 
coupled with the early German official announcement that the 
Government has laid no mines in the North Sea except on the 
immediate coast of England and Germany, and that these mines 
are so secure that in the absence of unforeseen conditions they 
cannot be torn away. 

Does it not stand to reason that Germany may not be 
interested in increasing the hazards in the North Sea? With the 
exception of Italy, her only means of communication with the 
world is by way of the North Sea — with the neutral powers, 
Holland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. If interests are to be 
balanced. Great Britain has perhaps as mucli or more reason 
to make the North Sea insecure for the double purpose of dis- 
couraging commercial intercourse with Germany, and of giving 
Great Britain an excuse to maintain a practical blockade of 
German ports, with her fleet secure on the western coast of 
England. 

Then there was the tale that the Kaiser had one hundred 
socialists shot. We now know that the socialists who fell were 
at the front. One socialist voted against one war appropriation, 
and more has been made of that than of the resignation of 

20 



three of Great Britain's most distinguished citizens from her 
Cabinet, because they could not approve of the war. 

We hear about atrocities. I shall not go into that subject. 
We know that there are atrocities in all wars, and that there 
are bad people in all countries. But, upon reflection, the Ameri- 
can mind will hardly accept that the German soldier — at least 
a product of a schooling system and of a system of labor and 
work — is more brutal than an army that is composed of English, 
French, Belgians, Eussians, Japanese, Hindus and Turcos. It 
does not appeal to the imagination and judgment; and rather 
than listen to all these accusations, I would take the words of 
Lord Roberts — an Englishman such as Great Britain has ever 
had, a man, every inch of him — who, in writing the book ' ' Forty 
Years in India," observed the moderation and the modesty that 
Grant showed in his memoirs, and who deprecated these accu- 
sations because, as he said, ''there are atrocities in all wars." 
Finally, as investigations are made by Americans, and even by 
Englishmen, these accusations fall to the ground. 

And so about the attacks upon the coast. It is the purpose 
now to have us believe that those attacks are barbarous and 
savage. It is true a man reading an account like that is bound 
to put down the paper. One child or one woman killed or 
injured in that manner is enough of tragedy for a whole war. 
Have you read about the little peasant girl in Galicia who 
received the highest order from the Austrian Emperor because 
her leg was shot off while carrying water to the fighting soldiers I 
But let us remember that the first attack on an undefended 
coast was made by the British ship Pegasus, while the coast of 
England is at least defended ; and the first aerial raid was made 
upon unfortified Duesseldorf in Germany. 

That was the introduction in the early part of tlie war, 
which has been followed up since then at other points; and 
the only difference between tlie two is that the one has been 
effective and the other was not. 

That brings to my mind the point to which your chairman 
referred, and which should not be forgotten. Great Britain 
will naturally make much of these attacks because she has not 
smelt foreign powder in her country for several centuries. I do 
not say that rejoicingly, but these are facts. Great Britain has 

21 



fought many wars, and has had many peoples help her fight, 
but she has had no fighting on English soil. Granting that her 
men have fought like brave men — and they have been and are 
a brave people, in spite of everything that may be said now — 
they have not known for centuries what it is to have English 
women and children subjected to the ravages of war. 

Germany, on the other hand, knows what war means. She 
has never had time to forget, and she is not apt to declare 
war hastily. 

When abroad last summer I asked whether I could get a 
piece of old German furniture. I knew I could get French and 
Italian, but I wanted a representative piece of old German. 
I was told it could not be had, because the thirty years' war 
had left none. That is the whole story. No one knows how that 
country has been devastated by wars fought upon its soil, often 
by foreign contending forces. Only the other day I read that 
no historian has ever dared to put in print the real story of the 
thirty years' war. Was it very different in the Napoleonic 
wars? Humiliation — heroism, but no recognition in the treaty 
of Vienna. Had Germany been given Elsas and Lothringen by 
treaty then, that question would have been justly and finally 
settled. She was denied even so much. She w^as left to take 
these provinces in 1870, and thus was sowed the seed for another 
war. Germany knows the story that England has forgotten; 
and the people of Great Britain are naturally more sensitive, in 
view of their experience during the last few centuries about the 
real sufferings of war. 

However, all this does not go to the real cause. We cannot 
determine who was responsible by considering merely such facts. 
We cannot determine guilt or innocence by the mere studying 
of the diplomatic chess-board, or by reading the White Book 
and the Blue Book, and less still by reading the briefs of astute 
lawyers based upon paper cases carefully prepared by experi- 
enced diplomats. The real cause of the war is not to be found 
in the trouble between Austria-Hungary and Servia, nor is it 
to be read in Grey's speeches, nor in the German Chancellor's, 
nor in the attitude of France, nor in the state of preparedness 
of Germany, nor in the timely review of tlie English fleet, nor 
even in the building of Russian railroads with French monev 

22 



to the Eastern border of Germany. The real cause of the war, 
in my opinion, lies deep down beyond all these things. Wars are 
not made by Kings today; they are made by peoples; and, in 
my judgment, this war, in the last analysis, is a peoples' war. 
It is to be attributed to the inevitable conflict between the East 
and the West. That is the essential cause of the war. There 
are irrepressible conflicts of race, religion and material struggle 
that operate powerfully, thougli half-consciously, to bring about 
war in spite of all our peace proclamations. The spirit of the 
crusades is as present today as it was centuries ago, and some 
of the peoples involved are as little advanced and as little pre- 
pared for appeals to more spiritual tribunals than were the 
peoples of earlier days. 

Germany is today the essential standard-bearer of western 
civilization against eastern encroachment, because England has 
for the time abandoned the cause. That is the fundamental 
explanation. The war being inevitable, the question really 
was how other countries would align themselves. About France 
there could be no doubt. She had decorated the statue of 
Elsas all these years, and the people who did that could not 
resist the war fever when the chance came. She had her war 
party and the day had come. Every one accepts that, and 
every one — even her enemies — feel profoundest sympathy for 
her. But that does not say that Elsas has not been as well 
governed by Germany as Ireland has been by England. The 
serious question was whether England would ally herself with 
her natural friend, Germany, to postpone war, or with her tra- 
ditional enemy, Russia, to bring war about. As Grey said, 
she consulted her own interest. She had a civilized competitoi* 
against whom she had no cause for war, but for whose humilia- 
tion she was willing to become a party to any combination. 
In my judgment, she committed the greatest blunder in her 
history, because her unquestioned triumph would be her pro- 
foundest defeat. 

If Great Britain succeeds with Russia and Japan in defeat- 
ing Germany for the time being, is there doubt in your minds 
that Russia will take Constantinople, will in that way control 
the way to India, and will lay the first foundation for the dis- 
memberment of the British Empire? Who would settle the ques- 

23 



tions which must surely arise in such a contingency between 
England and her Eastern ally? 

Who are Great Britain's allies! First and foremost, Rus- 
sia. Is that a combination to invite our confidence and our 
sympathy? What has become of the sentiment that was created 
in years past by the writings of Kennan about the horrors of 
Siberia? What has become of the impressions that were created 
by the fate of Finland? What is there to change the attitude 
of the United States, whose people sympathized with Japan 
against Russia and are now asked to side with Russia against 
Germany? Where is the popular demand that forced an abro- 
gation of all treaties between the United States and Russia 
because of the oppressive measures which Russia exercised 
against citizens of the United States visiting their old homes? 
Do those who prate about brutality really wish the triumph of 
a government whose reputation speaks naught but oppression? 

And what of Japan? What is the foundation and where 
is the justification of that alliance? Will anybody believe that 
Japan entered into the war without definite assurance of con- 
cessions ? Then what has become of this abhorrence of conquest ! 
Does any one know when, under what circumstances, and with 
what obligations the treaty between Great Britain and Japan 
was made? Was it an offensive and defensive treaty against 
the world? If we were excepted, was as much true of other 
countries? If so, who were they? And if Germany alone was 
had in mind in that treaty do we not get a hint as to responsi- 
bility for this war? 

I ask is not such a condition suggestive for us — for the 
future in the far East? 

Who are the other allies? The Hindus? No. They are not 
allies. They have not the independence to form an alliance. 
They are citizens for the purpose of being soldiers, and for 
no other. I do not desire to criticize the Hindu; but I am 
endeavoring to see just how it would look to us. It is somewhat 
anomalous, it appears to me, to know that a Hindu is practically 
excluded from Canada, and, if he gets in, is generally sent back, 
although he comes under the flag of Great Britain. And yet the 
Canadian and the Hindu are fighting side by side in the name of 
civilization against Germany. Not unlike Australia, suspicious 

24 



of the encouragement to Japan in the Pacific Ocean, but glorify- 
ing in the combination of their fleets to humiliate Germany. 

Is there anything inspiring in the presence of the Turcot 
No American will say that he ought to be a soldier in such a 
war. He belongs to a subject race. There is no thought of his 
fighting for his own independence or cause. The highest motive 
that can be attributed to him is his joy in killing some kind of a 
white man. In our country it is the irony of fate that we cannot 
secure even a chance at equality for the black man, although we 
have granted it to him constitutionally and legally ; and, at the 
same time, the very part of our people which is least willing 
to secure the black man that right, is loudest in its expression 
of sympathy for the Turco's victory over the Germans. 

And at last the Egyptian, too. Within twenty-five years 
England was still withdrawing from her temporary occupancy. 
Now she has in Egypt's name declared war on Germany to con- 
trol the Suez Canal ; and still we talk of breaches of neutrality, 
and condemn a restrained nation's desire to enlarge her ter- 
ritory. 

Eeflect upon such a combination to destroy a highly civilized 
people, upon the ground that they are brutal — for that is the 
charge. An attack to humiliate Teutonic civilization; and in 
that attack Great Britain has allies galore, but not a Teuton 
nation allied with her. 

We are told that the accusations that have gone out are 
not really entertained in our country. It is said the American 
people are intelligent enough not to be influenced by that sort 
of statement. I am glad to say that, in a large measure, this 
is true. Some very distinguished men in our country have 
spoken up bravely and impartially. We read with deep interest 
the statements of the president of Yale, who, with absolute 
impartiality and admirable clearness, lays before us conditions 
abroad as he knows them. But can we suppress other statements 
coming from a very prominent citizen, also associated with 
intellectual life, who has so far forgotten himself as to ascribe 
this war chiefly to the brutality of the German mind? That 
leads one to suspect that the author of such statements must 
have received his first impressions about Bernhardi and 
Treitschke from newspaper clippings after the war was 

25 



declared. If he had read the books themselves, or, better, if 
he had read other books about Germany, he would know that 
he has completely missed the point of these authors. Their 
appeal to the German people was to wake up; that was their 
real plea. They feared that the old spirit of the Deutsche 
Michel had again come upon the country, or that the people 
might suffer the common fate of prosperity; and they sought 
to arouse the people from Avhat they thought to be lethargy 
and luxury. 

But if we must speak of brutality, let us recall what authors 
of other countries have said. Have there been no Englishmen 
who talked war and advocated preparation! Lord Roberts 
counseled an English army based upon service, and he was a 
respected soldier and citizen. Churchill had for some time 
avowedly aimed at Germany in his public utterances. Lea, an 
American, as late as 1912, in a book dedicated to Lord Eoberts, 
announced it to be the first duty of Great Britain to crush 
Germany; and Kitchener's reputation rests upon his ability 
to ruthlessly mow down savages. Is there nothing savage, for 
illustration, in Kipling, the poet? Has any man succeeded in 
putting brutality in so poetic a form, with the eternal refrain 
of the white man's burden, and never a thought for the yellow 
man? Is there nothing brutal in Curzon's speech, in ^vhich he 
anticipates the joy of seeing the Turcos dance on the sidewalks 
of Potsdam? And has France had no war spirit? Her present 
Minister of War has for many years favored an attack upon 
Germany. Russia has had her war party, menacing the peace 
of the world. Our country had Admiral Mahan, who believed 
in taking territory'- for the purpose of spreading civilization and 
meeting our responsibility to the world. Nor should we forget 
that there was a time when we had Roosevelt, and regarded him 
as something of an interpreter of public sentiment. 

So let us deal with these facts, and let us not be lost in 
phrases of militarism. 

If German}^ was strong in her own army, let it be remem- 
bered that she had not as large a percentage of soldiers to her 
population as France; and her appropriations per capita were 
smaller. Her appropriations for army and navy were not as 
large as those of Great Britain, and per capita they were much 

26 



smaller. They were not as large as those of Russia. And 
above all, her army is composed of her own citizens — the same 
citizens who have made her a nation of first rank by every test 
of high civilization. 

When we speak of the dangers of such a power in Germany, 
why not reflect upon the power of the British fleet? Is there 
no significance in a fleet which arbitrarily controls the seas, and, 
so far as we can see, makes international law to meet the case? 
As for the Kaiser, he is not an absolute monarch, as is so often 
stated. These impressions about militarism, monarchy and 
bureaucracy in Germany have been permitted to grow and live, 
because English information has not kept pace with German 
development. But now since we have watched the Kaiser for 
some five months, I think we must admit that there is at least 
one imperial figure who with every son at the front, challenges 
the world's attention. They are a part of a system of which 
the people themselves form a part ; more completely than is the 
case in any one of the other countries. Germany is a country 
of service from Kaiser to Knecht — in peace and in war. 

I had not been in Germany for forty-two years, arriving 
there two days before the state of war was declared; but I 
witnessed the greatest demonstration that was ever presented 
to me. I could not have believed that it was possible for any 
people to exhibit such unanimity of spirit and devotion. On the 
day before the war,, apparently every human being hoped that 
war might be averted ; but in one hour the change was wrought, 
an army was created, an army of men at the front, and an army 
of women at home. Without sign of rejoicing or dismay upon 
every lip the word Schicksalsstunde. I stood at the railroad 
station in Muenchen for hours and saw the strangers apparently 
of all countries rush to get away. With all the anxiety and 
terror among them, I never heard a word of unfriendliness; 
never saw an act calculated to invite friction or discomfort. As 
late as September, in Berlin day after day I saw English women 
standing in long lines in the street waiting for their transporta- 
tion ; and not a person to molest them, not an officer required to 
protect them. I saw officers with their wives and families go 
to join their regiments, and part from them at the entrance of 
the stations. I remember seeing an old peasant woman accom- 

27 



panying her young son, carrying the last bundle as a token to 
her boy — but never a tear while the men were there. All for 
the nation. I traveled through the country, and out in the fields 
I saw the women and the children and the old men, who at sight 
of a uniform would pause to put down their rakes and cheer; 
and then go on to bring in the harvest. I have seen the children 
at the station cheering the soldiers ; many times, no doubt, salut- 
ing the men who filled the gaps made by their own fallen fathers 
or brothers. I attended a religious service in the Thier Garten 
in Berlin, and heard the national hymns sung by the multitude — 
a mixture of religion and patriotism, such as I had not believed 
possible in this day and century. And it seemed to me that I 
saw one nation which the civilized world cannot afford to lose ; 
because, and I say it without hesitation, more than any other, 
that nation has solved the modern problem of doing substanti- 
ally all its own work in peace and in war. 

We must remember that the questions of today are not so 
much political; they are rather industrial and social, and in 
these fields Germany has forged ahead with a degree of success 
that is little understood in other countries, and that, in my 
judgment, is without parallel. Great Britain has learned the 
lesson to import her labor. France has employed much foreign 
labor. We are doing it; and our unwillingness to do our own 
work constitutes our greatest weakness. Disraeli early in his 
career said that British aristocracy had retained its preroga- 
tives, but had forgotten its obligations. Dawson, an English- 
man, puts it plainly to England, that if she wants to compete 
with Germany she must work like Germany. In a later book he 
says that bureaucracy does not necessarily mean the same thing 
in two countries, and that the greatest mistake England has 
made with respect to Germany is to misunderstand her local 
system, the foundation of her national strength. He says Eng- 
land has kept the form of free government, but has dismissed 
the use of experts. Germany has retained the expert, and has 
evolved the most successful system of liberal self-government 
upon the old rules laid down by Stein, that is known to the 
civilized world of the present day. The result is that Germany 
has no paupers; she has only poor; she has no feeling of con- 
tempt for poor people, but she has solicitude ; she has no beggars 

28 



on the streets, because there is work or support; she has no 
unprotected orphans, because the government takes control and 
sees to their bringing up. If persuasive evidence were needed 
of the perfection of her system in the care of her destitute, it 
need only be said that in spite of all the horrors and cost of her 
war, she has even now made an appropriation of $100,000,000 
for the reconstruction of East Prussia, destroyed by Russian 
invasion within the last few months. She has not rested with 
the appropriation, but she has appointed a commission of 
trained men to ascertain the best method for the restoration of 
the destroyed country, upon lines and in a fashion that will con- 
stitute an improvement over the conditions that prevailed before 
the war. These are evidences of her success in a field in which, 
despite all our declamation about liberty, most civilized coun- 
tries of the present day have failed. 

I need not say that it is not for us to make comparisons in 
passion. For one, I do not share the feeling that is sometimes 
expressed with respect to England. I think England has made 
a great political mistake. That is my judgment, and in that I 
am borne out by the statement made by Trevelyan at the time 
of his resignation. He said among other things that war had 
been declared because they did not wish to see France destroyed, 
but that he was just as much interested in the name of civiliza- 
tion not to see Germany destroyed. He asked whether they are 
to rejoice to see Russia come out of this war successfully with 
her wild and ever renewing hordes of endless peoples to pour 
down upon bowed western civilization! He adds that they are 
really fighting for Russia. 

As many of you no doubt know, I have always been an ad- 
mirer of England. The books of great Englishmen are on my 
shelves, and I cannot forget that such inspiration as has come 
to me I must attribute in large part to English influence. I can- 
not question that most of our citizenship, whatever its origin, 
must be in some measure indebted for the same experience. 
True, there are German books upon my shelves, and I may re- 
gret that they are not more widely understood in my country. 
I cannot but believe that our people would be benefited by a 
better appreciation of the sublime idealism of Schiller, the pro- 
found philosophy of Goethe, the intense patriotism of Arndt and 

29 



Jahn, and the great statesmanship of Stein. But with all that, 
no American can be asked to forget that England always had 
her great men as she has now. I must still turn to Burke, Pitt, 
Fox and others, who were friends to our country in the day 
of her need, and who today provide inspiration for high patriot- 
ism. We cannot be asked to forget that in the day of our Civil 
War, but for Bright, the great Englishman, we might have had 
England against us. I cannot forget that in this day there are 
Morley, Trevelyan, Burns and others, who see England's case 
much as I see it, and who regard her attitude as a blunder. I 
cannot forget that Bryce wrote a book which was an awakening 
for the United States, and thereby rendered a service of ines- 
timable value to us. 

The truth is that the peoples of Germany and England are 
so closely related that this conflict should never have been. All 
the strength they have should have gone to each other's sup- 
port, to sustain them in the ultimate conflict. Germany has 
understood the literature and the laws of England, and has 
profited by them. Although the English people have no corre- 
sponding acquaintance with German literature, her distin- 
guished men have repeatedly paid tribute to German thought 
and influence. We need but instance Carlyle and Morley. 
Within less than two years Lord Haldane, in his address before 
the American Bar Association, frankly stated that the German 
word '' SittlichJceit/' — the foundation of all law and social or- 
der — had no translation in the language of any other people. 
Then how did this conflict arise but through the influence of 
misguided politicians. 

In truth these people are cousins, and unhappily the con- 
flict must be the more serious because they are. Nevertheless, 
I cling to the hope and the belief, that in the last analysis the 
question must be how untimely Eastern influence shall be with- 
stood in its attempt to encroach upon western civilization. I 
ask, will any one nation be strong enough to make that resist- 
ance? For my part, I agree with the declaration which I read 
in one of the German newspapers even after the war, that in 
spite of all the savagery; in spite of all the bitterness and the 
hatred, it must be recognized that ultimately the Teuton nations 
will be compelled to stand together against Eastern invasion. 

30 



Eussia's day may come in the dim future; but it has not now 
come, because she is not now prepared to take control of the 
world's civilization by aught but arms and force. 

Again, the Germans have the word which is the keynote 
to the ultimate Teutonic supremacy, — Ich dien. It comes from 
them and they have lived it. The English adopted it, but, in 
some measure, are forgetting to live it. These are the words 
upon which those nations, Germany and England, will have to 
build their platform, to stem the onslaught which is bound to 
come from the East — from a country that must be resisted 
although its people can never be conquered because their coun- 
try cannot be invaded. 

And we? Our part may be that of ultimate peacemaker. 
If that be so, the first condition is an attitude of public and 
private neutrality. But neutrality does not mean mere acquies- 
cense. It means absolute impartiality between belligerents, and 
firm insistence upon our own rights. 



31 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 914 096 2 



